If betrothal can be enacted through money — even, as we learned recently, a single coinor a piece of fruit — what makes it different from any other commercial transaction?
Rav says: One who betroths with a loan is not betrothed, for the loan was given to be spent.
Let us say this is like the Tannaitic debate: One who betroths with a loan is not betrothed; others say, he is betrothed … And they agree with regard to a sale that one acquires it (with a loan).
The debate here is whether one can use a loan to effect betrothal. In other words, if a man lends a woman money, then forgives the debt, does that count as money he has given her for betrothal? Rav says no, though there is an earlier Tannaitic debate on the subject: Both sides agree that one can forgive a loan in order to effect a sale, while they disagree about whether the same action can effect a betrothal.
Help us keep Jewish knowledge accessible to millions of people around the world.
Your donation to My Jewish Learning fuels endless journeys of Jewish discovery. With your help, My Jewish Learning can continue to provide nonstop opportunities for learning, connection and growth.
Rambam (Moses Maimonides) rules, on the one hand, like Rav, that a loan is ineffective for betrothal, but like the earlier source, on the other hand, that a loan can effect a sale of other goods.
Rabbi Aryeh Leib Heller, a late 18th-century/early 19th-century Galician rabbi and halakhic decisor, offers an explanation for this potentially contradictory ruling. He argues that this is similar to the case of a gift that is given on the condition it is returned and that, while this can effect a sale, it cannot effect a betrothal:
… because it requires that she experience pleasure, and if she doesn’t enjoy the equivalent of a peruta (small coin), it is disgraceful for her to betroth herself for nothing … and that is why (one may not betroth with a loan), as betrothal specifically requires pleasure and a loan doesn’t provide pleasure … but for a sale, which doesn’t require enjoyment … a loan is considered money that can be used to acquire something, as there is no pleasure that has already been enjoyed.
Rabbi Heller is saying that there is a fundamental difference between betrothal and a regular sale, despite the fact that both can be enacted with money: Betrothal requires enjoyment. If a woman doesn’t benefit from what she is given at the time of betrothal, she is not considered betrothed. Rav Baruch Gigi, a contemporary leader at Yeshivat Har Etzion, writes, “This can be better understood if we consider kiddushin not as a monetary relationship, but basically as an interpersonal one. Therefore, the money is required not merely as payment, but as a symbol and generator of agreement by the woman to enter a matrimonial relationship.”
It was pointed out to me recently that modern adoption follows a similar pattern: While money is exchanged as part of the process, few would argue that one is simply buying a child. There are costs to solidify the arrangement, logistically and legally, but the money is more a signifier of a legal agreement, in the same way the exchange of money in marriage is. While it would be naive to argue that, historically, marriage has never had a sense of being transactional, it is clear here that the rabbis and later commentators offer a deeper insight into the transaction of marriage: It is, at the end of the day, a living relationship, and not merely a business deal.
Read all of Kiddushin 47 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on September 29th, 2023. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
